EGE question

[siucavflight]

Of course it is based on a speed. But where is it used? The only place I've seen it is on IFR approach plates. So if someone says the airport is limited to Class A&B aircraft, the assumption is that IFR approaches are the limitation and that a VFR approach would not have that restriction.

I think you are looking at it wrong KSU, the notam is simply closing the airport to any aircraft other than class A&B, it does not matter if you are doing an approach or not, you still always fall under one of those category of aircraft.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Definative answer:

04/027 - AD CLSD ACFT WINGSPAN GTR THAN 79/APCH SPD GTR THAN 120KTS EXC ARC B-II AND LWR. 15 APR 14:00 2009 UNTIL 01 SEP 13:00 2009. CREATED: 13 APR 20:35 2009

The wingspan of a lear is just under 40 feet.

The approach speed is greater than 120 kts

BUT

It is an ARC B-II aircraft:

[FONT=EEMNHC+TimesNewRoman]Single-engine airplanes - ARC A-I and B-I [/FONT]
[FONT=EEMNHC+TimesNewRoman]Twin-piston engine airplanes - ARC B-I [/FONT]
[FONT=EEMNHC+TimesNewRoman]Twin-turbopropeller airplanes - ARC B-II [/FONT]
[FONT=EEMNHC+TimesNewRoman]Business jets (small cabin) - ARC B-II [/FONT]
[FONT=EEMNHC+TimesNewRoman]Business jets (medium to large cabin) - ARC C-II[/FONT]

 

[ksu_aviator]

I think you are looking at it wrong KSU, the notam is simply closing the airport to any aircraft other than class A&B, it does not matter if you are doing an approach or not, you still always fall under one of those category of aircraft.

I was looking at it with the information I had, see the op. But, I broke it down and found the most accurate answer.

 

[avbug]

So if someone says the airport is limited to Class A&B aircraft, the assumption is that IFR approaches are the limitation and that a VFR approach would not have that restriction.

Assumption doesn't become us, does it?

Don't assume. The NOTAM is clear. It doesn't provide a weight restriction. It does provide specific guidance as to what will and will not be allowed to operate into the airport during the specified time. The NOTAM specifically states that aerodrome, or airport, is closed to aircraft not meeting the specifications of the NOTAM.

ARC is Airport Reference Code. ARC IIB airport classification represents the "most demanding" aircraft that are anticipated to use an airport. It describes aircraft with approach landing speeds less than 121 knots, and a wingspan up to but not including 79'.

The ARC does not establish, and is not, an instrument approach category classification. It's an airport classification, typically describing the standard to which an airport is built or planned, given the nature of the aircraft anticipated to be using the field. The ARC doesn't provide a restriction; it's simply a descriptive number. Aircraft with larger wingspans and faster speeds aren't necessarily barred from using an ARC IIB field...because it's a design classification, and not a restriction.

In this case, however, the NOTAM provides the restriction.

Aircraft meeting ARC IIB may use the field, provided they have an approach speed of 121 knots or less and a wingspan less than 79.

VFR or IFR is irrelevant.

 

[ksu_aviator]

In this case, however, the NOTAM provides the restriction.

Aircraft meeting ARC IIB may use the field, provided they have an approach speed of 121 knots or less and a wingspan less than 79.

VFR or IFR is irrelevant.

You misread the NOTAM. The closure is to aircraft over 79 foot wing span and/or an approach speed over 120 knots EXCEPT for ARC BII aircraft.

I take that to mean an ARC BII aircraft (i.e. a lear 35) can us KEGE.

 

[avbug]

ARC BII means aircraft with a wingspan less than 79 feet, and an approach speed less than 121 knots.

A small cabin business class turbojet may be an ARC BII aircraft...but only if it's approach speed is under 121 knots and it has a wingspan less than 79'.

The Learjet is considered a C1 and D1 aircraft, with respect to Airport Reference Codes.

doc.ci.redmond.or.us/Airport/Master_Plan_2005/Exhibits/3A.pdf

is consid Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13 provides a listing of large and small aircraft, and their ARC rating...and the the Learjet 28/29 are cited Category B-1. The Learjet 24 and 25 are cited as Category C-1. The Learjet 35A/36A...category D-1.

A Citation II and Sabreliner 65 meet B-II criteria, reference the above advisory circular. Conversely, a Sabre 40 or 60 are Category B-1 aircraft, with respect to the ARC.

You can read it for yourself:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...18625747200692F0B?OpenDocument&Highlight=5300

Again, the NOTAM is clear, and it wasn't misread.

 

[ksu_aviator]

ARC BII means aircraft with a wingspan less than 79 feet, and an approach speed less than 121 knots.

A small cabin business class turbojet may be an ARC BII aircraft...but only if it's approach speed is under 121 knots and it has a wingspan less than 79'.

The Learjet is considered a C1 and D1 aircraft, with respect to Airport Reference Codes.

doc.ci.redmond.or.us/Airport/Master_Plan_2005/Exhibits/3A.pdf

is consid Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13 provides a listing of large and small aircraft, and their ARC rating...and the the Learjet 28/29 are cited Category B-1. The Learjet 24 and 25 are cited as Category C-1. The Learjet 35A/36A...category D-1.

A Citation II and Sabreliner 65 meet B-II criteria, reference the above advisory circular. Conversely, a Sabre 40 or 60 are Category B-1 aircraft, with respect to the ARC.

You can read it for yourself:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...18625747200692F0B?OpenDocument&Highlight=5300

Again, the NOTAM is clear, and it wasn't misread.

Ok, I'll buy that.

 

[SansPlane]

For the record

For the record, I love avbug in states where it is permitted. I love the truthfulness he espouses. No worries on your end avbug. I am happily married to a woman who does not know any better.

 

[ProFracPilot]

Might it have been a life flight? Just thinkin' of possible exceptions to the Cat A-B restriction.

 

[LJ45]

The same company flew a 35 and a 25 in there. I would sure like to take my Lear 45 in there, but as I understand it is Cat C.

 

[Fly91]

The same company flew a 35 and a 25 in there. I would sure like to take my Lear 45 in there, but as I understand it is Cat C.

Man, nobody here is even close to guessing why this restriction is in place. Including my guess, which for me it was the absence of any type of approach lighting system and I just figured VFR landings were ok to Cat "C".

The width of the temp runway is the ONLY reason this temporary runway is restricted to A and BII aircraft. The FSDO can issue you a letter if your aircraft is a Cat "C" and can also fly a safe approach speed of 121 or less to go into EGE at this time.

I just spoke to the tower supervisor, 970-328-2680, he told me that a couple Lear 25's/35's in the past few weeks have had these letters. The Lears and other Cat "C" aircraft that have gone in there without the FSDO letter of authorization were told not to return again without the letter.

I called because I too have seen Lears going in there on Flight Aware, we might have to stop in there next week, so I'll be getting the letter this week. But he did say, you can go in once without getting into trouble, but not again without the letter. I'm getting the letter just to be sure.

************He may be wrong too, its just what he told me, I just wanted to ask them so I'm legal.

 

[avbug]

Man, nobody here is even close to guessing why this restriction is in place. Including my guess, which for me it was the absence of any type of approach lighting system and I just figured VFR landings were ok to Cat "C".

Again, VFR/IFR is irrelevant, and there's little point in unprofessional guesswork or speculation in avaition.

"Why" is unimportant and irrelevant, and most of the time if you're asking a "why" question, you're asking the wrong question.

The information I posted previously on the subject is accurate and correct. The problem wasn't a matter of people not understanding why. It was a problem of people understanding the NOTAM in the first place.

 

[Fly91]

Again, VFR/IFR is irrelevant, and there's little point in unprofessional guesswork or speculation in avaition.

"Why" is unimportant and irrelevant, and most of the time if you're asking a "why" question, you're asking the wrong question.

The information I posted previously on the subject is accurate and correct. The problem wasn't a matter of people not understanding why. It was a problem of people understanding the NOTAM in the first place.

Right, but what you posted is usless if someone wants to KNOW WHY???? After all, Cat "C" aircraft have been flying in there for weeks with that NOTAM in place. So now its being discussed in this thread as to WHY??? Therefore, its only logical for people/pilots to want to know WHY???? My boss is a former Air Force Fighter pilot, he's got more flight time than I do, if I told him we can't go in there because we are Cat "C"...he would be certain to ask me why can't Cat "C" go in there. Me, not being someone who wants to look like a dummy in front of my boss/experienced combat pilot and just say, "because it says so." I want to learn actually WHY??? More professional that way when I can tell him exactly WHY. Further more, now I can call him to tell him what the deal is tomorrow on my way to the FSDO to get the letter, and also tell him on top of it already.

So I called to find out. The answer is not in the regs and its not going to be found here. There is nothing in the NOTAM about the temp runways width being the reason, it just says that Cat "C" or higher is not allowed. Pilots, all of us, will always continue to learn new things in aviation forever. You, me and everyone who reads this thread just learned that runway widths are the ONLY determining factor for different Category approach speeds for a given runway. Pretty cool, I didn't expect to learn something new today. Alot of my friends go into EGE too, now I can relay the info to them as well.

Its also pretty nice to have found out we can get a letter of authorization from our FSDO to go in if we are able to meet the restriction safely, which you didn't include in your post.

So I actually asked the correct question...WHY?

So we all learned two things.

 

[LJ45]

Please keep us posted on which FSDO's are issuing these "letters"

Thanks!

 

[Fly91]

Please keep us posted on which FSDO's are issuing these "letters"

Thanks!

I'm going to the FLL FSDO tomorrow sometime in the afternoon. Not supposed to just show up but I spoke with an inspector today. He said call in the morning to get a time for the afternoon if ones available.

I'll certainly let you know what I find out.